I. GENERAL OVERVIEW The HDOT is tasked with maintaining and managing the roads and bridges between properties in the State of Hawaii. Many of these roads and bridges now meet or are approaching the age criteria for evaluation as historic properties. Federal funding and the State of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) ensure that HDOT and its political subdivisions consider alternatives that are feasible and prudent before adversely affecting an historic site through undertakings that may include alterations, repair, and/or replacement. Federal funding cannot be distributed to a project until all alternatives have been thoroughly considered prior to initiating undertakings that may adversely affect a bridge eligible for listing on the NRHP. As there are hundreds of bridges in the HDOT inventory, it was concluded that an efficient process was needed to identify the bridges that are eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. The intent of this report is to evaluate the historic significance of bridges listed in the HDOT inventory. The goal for the HDOT will be to utilize this inventory to aid in future consultation with respect to facilitating/stream‐ lining the approval process for various construction projects with the SHPD and the ACHP. Note that this bridge inventory does not include archaeological or cultural concerns and does not propose treatment for each bridge. This report is an update of a document titled State of Hawaii Historic Bridge Inventory and Evaluation, completed by The Heritage Center in 2008 under the supervision of Spencer Leineweber of Honolulu, Hawaii. The current scope of work did not involve re‐visiting the already acceptable historic contexts previously developed and other major elements of the draft 2008 inventory. This report is based largely on the draft 2008 inventory. This 2013 inventory has been updated to include County bridges and all bridges identified with a construction date prior to 1968; the previous report included bridges constructed in 1941 or earlier. County bridges were added to the inventory since the Counties fall under the political subdivision category and must follow the same laws, statutes (for example, HRS, Chapter 6E as noted in the following section), and guidelines as HDOT. REGULATORY BACKGROUND STATE LAW Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Chapter 6E (1976). Chapter 6E of the HRS regulations requires the “development of a statewide survey and inventory to identify and document historic properties.”1 The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is required to coordinate the activities of the political subdivisions of the state in accordance with the state plan for historic preservation. Further, HRS §6E‐8, Review of effect of proposed State and County projects, requires HDOT to provide the SHPD with an opportunity for review and must receive a written concurrence before a project can proceed.2 In HRS §6E‐2, a “project” is defined as any activity directly undertaken by the State or its political subdivisions or supported in whole, or in part, through appropriation, contracts, grants, subsides, loans, or other forms of funding assistance from the State or its political subdivisions or involving any lease, permit, license, certificate, land use change, or other entitlement for use issued by the State or its political subdivisions (Hawaii Senate Bill SB 3010). 1 State of Hawaii, §6E‐3 Historic Preservation Program, under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 6E, http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/hpd/hpfctsht.htm (accessed April 1, 2013). 2 State of Hawaii, §6E‐8 Review of effect of proposed State and County projects, under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 6E, http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/hpd/hpfctsht.htm (accessed March 28, 2013). 1 - 2 FEDERAL LAW Since the 1960s, Congress has passed various federal laws to protect cultural resources. The laws that impact the HDOT process of protecting Hawaii’s cultural resources are summarized below. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) (16 United States Codes and Statues (U.S.C.) §470). NHPA recognizes the Nation’s historic heritage and establishes a national policy for the preservation of historic properties. The act contains several sections, each specifying procedures and mechanisms for developing and implementing historic preservation programs. Section 106 notes that any project involving Federal monies to obtain permitting, licensing, and approval must follow an established review process to ensure historic partners an opportunity to comment. Section 110 notes the responsibility of Federal government to maintain an inventory of their historic property. Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) of 1966. This act includes a special provision ‐ Section 4(f) ‐ which stipulates that the FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from publicly‐owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless the following conditions apply: • There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land, and • The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from use. “Use” of a property protected under Section 4(f) may be defined as a) permanent incorporation of land, b) temporary occupation of land if that temporary occupancy meets certain criteria, or c) by effect of proximity where noise, visibility, or other like conditions substantially impair the protected features of the property. In 2005, as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐ LU, Public Law 109‐59, Aug. 10, 2005), Congress amended Section 4(f) to provide an alternative method of approving the use of protected resources where the impact is de minimis. The de minimis impact determination provides the basis for U.S. DOT to approve the minor use of a Section 4(f) property without identifying and evaluating avoidance alternatives—thus streamlining the approval process. The new regulations were also codified, for the first time, in a stand‐alone section of the regulations—23 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 774. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§4321‐4347). NEPA requires Federal agencies to identify and consider the environmental impacts of Federal actions and includes consideration of impacts on cultural resources. As required by the NHPA and NEPA, every Federal agency must provide for the identification and consideration of historic properties prior to undertaking any action that may potentially affect these resources. This applies to state agencies that receive Federal funds. Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100‐17, April 2, 1987). This bill, which addresses highway improvement, planning and research throughout the United States, also declares that States are required to identify historic bridges listed in the National Bridge Inventory. Furthermore, it requires the Transportation Research Board to review and develop rehabilitation standards for historic bridges, as well as setting forth minimum allocations for each state for the purposes of transportation planning and research. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Program Comment Issued for Streamlining Section 106 Review for Actions Affecting Post‐1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges, 2012. The Program Comment issued by the ACHP addresses undertakings which affect a number of common concrete and steel bridges located throughout the nation and whose construction was generally standardized in the years after 1945. Although federal agencies must still complete the Section 106 review process for the identification of historic properties and effects of actions upon said properties, the Program Comment was issued for the following reasons: 1) It allows a federal agency to comply with Section 106 for a category of undertakings in lieu of conducting reviews for each individual proposed action, 2) It recommends state FHWA divisions develop a list of readily recognizable exceptional common bridges that may be excluded from the Program Comment, and encourages transportation agencies to update their historic bridge 1 - 3 inventories, and 3) It encourages the resolution of adverse effects that may result from potential replacement of existing common bridges. SCOPE OF SURVEY The updated 2013 bridge inventory includes State‐ and County‐owned bridges that are listed on the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). The Federal government defines a “bridge” as a structure erected over a depression or an obstruction with a track or passageway for carrying traffic or other moving loads, and having an opening measured along the center of the roadway of more than 20 feet between undercopings of abutments or springlines of arches (23 C.F.R. 650.403). This definition is used as a criterion for eligibility to use Federal funds and includes all bridges that are inspected every two years. Due to this definition, HDOT does not maintain the same records for the bridges or culverts less than 20 feet. Pedestrian and other non‐vehicular bridges were sometimes included in the inventory when listed on the NBI. Counties can opt to place a pedestrian bridge on the NBI to qualify for Federal funding. The 2013 study involved the initial analysis of 708 potentially historic bridges constructed between 1894 and 1968, on the islands of Oahu, Hawaii, Maui, Molokai and Kauai. These bridges were first identified in the following reports: Historic Bridge Inventory: Island of Oahu prepared by